Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

You guys could test that theory by bringing your lacrosse program back from the dead.

No thanks

Why spread our resources out even thinner?

Why spread our resources out even thinner?

You wouldn't unless it were mandated. Interestingly, MSU (the Big Ten) might prefer it to be mandated. I'm curious of the ramifications to the world of CFB, for example, if every P5 (emphasis on: SEC) school were required to fully fund, say, 32 revenue sports. If "spreading thin" were a relative game, doing it could be attractive for MSU. Moreso nationally than in conference, though.

Is that true, BB? Maybe something has changed but a decade ago hockey was only a profit-bearing sport for the helmet schools like Michigan, Minnesota, BC, etc. The rest only did it because they loved it / they were a small school and this was their best chance at "mainstream" fame. After Title IX, cutting hockey was a priority for many schools. I suspect dollars and cents were a big part of that, so this can't have (generally) been a revenue sport then and it wasn't 10 years ago when the sport was still contracting either. Clearly something has changed of late, because now we're growing. But I am skeptical of that thing being a revenue revolution. Isn't the better explanation for PSU, ASU and maybe Illinois next that some places have money bags donors willing to bank roll something that is otherwise unworkable. Lacrosse is different of course. Because hockey rinks are different. Expensive.

Is that true, BB? Maybe something has changed but a decade ago hockey was only a profit-bearing sport for the helmet schools like Michigan, Minnesota, BC, etc. The rest only did it because they loved it / they were a small school and this was their best chance at "mainstream" fame. After Title IX, cutting hockey was a priority for many schools. I suspect dollars and cents were a big part of that, so this can't have commonly been a revenue sport..

There was a time when hockey was a revenue sport at MSU, it actually still I believe breaks even-ish.  Most recent data I can find is from 2 years ago, showing UM with $3.1 million in hockey revenue and MSU with $2.9 million, I'm assuming expenses are probably close?  I'm not sure if BTN breaks it down by sport as to how much each school gets.
So hockey isn't the money pit that it seems to be at MSU, but I'm certainly not interested in adding sports, MSU seems stretched too thin as it is.  I'm guessing MSU is up there behind UM, OSU and PSU (and I'm guessing Maryland?) in terms of sponsored varsity sports.  There's no reason for that to be the case.

Maryland doesn't play all that many sports. Nebraska is barking with the big dogs though.

To show the level of apathy, MSU has it's best sketer in years, Taro Hirose, who led the NCAA in points, won Big Ten Player of the Year, and is a Hobey Baker finalist.  I doubt most MSU fans even know his name.

He already signed and made his NHL debut with the Red Wings, keeping up those points, with 4 of them in his first 4 NHL games.